- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 02:13:32 +0000
- To: "<kcoyle@kcoyle.net>" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- CC: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Karen, The term "intellectual font" is interesting. Could you say more about what you have in mind there? Fonts are visual and I think that visualizations of abstractions are really important. OTOH, *imagining* a visualization seems to fold in on itself. My brain is reeling, perhaps in a good way, perhaps in a koan way. The latter is OK, but it would help to hear some follow-up words. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Jul 2, 2013, at 6:37 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Niklas, while your proposal is very well thought-out, let me clarify that "commonEndeavor" is not the same as dc:isFormatOf. commonEndeavor can be between things of the same format, such as the same text published at different times (e.g. the many re-publications of various classics). Another possibility is to use it to link translations to each other (even though none are the original). It can ALSO refer to the same story or theme in different formats. In other words, commonEndeavor is broader than dc:isFormatOf, and can be used for anything where you think the intellectual font was the same. > > What I like about commonEndeavor is that it does not assume a precedence. I realize that in fact saying that MovieA dc:isFormatOf BookB does not state that the book can first, but I think it is easy to interpret it that way. commonEndeavor is designed to be a horizontal relationship that says, in effect: the two of these have significant intellectual content in common. > > None of this is to say that we should NOT also consider dc:isFormatOf if we consider it useful. It's just that it has a different meaning to commonEndeavor. > > I agree with your analysis that it is best to avoid the necessity of an abstract class. I think that it is better to create relationships between things that people generally recognize as "things" than to try to decide what is abstract and what is concrete. Both commonEndeavor and dc:isFormatOf avoid the need for an abstract class. > > kc > > On 7/2/13 2:54 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'm sure we can find a way of reconciling our current, varied, positions >> regarding instanceOf and commonEndeavour. The differences seem to relate >> to various MARC and FRBR experiences, or at least reactions to the >> different rigors, or indeed lack thereof, that have come out of these. I >> also think we can avoid inventing too much new thinking on these >> matters, since there is lots to reuse from the domain of resource >> descriptions. >> >> Model-wise, I think many of us (perhaps all) agree that the restrictive >> abstraction principles of WEMI separation, and the simpler but still >> divided Work/Instance counterpart evolving in BIBFRAME, are too rigid >> for schema.org <http://schema.org/> (and possibly for cataloguing in >> general). However, many also see a great benefit in relating to common >> generalized notions of works from their specific forms, at least when a >> work is available in a multitude of formats. This notion is very useful >> both for facilitating cataloguers' workflow and for building services >> upon the data. As I mentioned a while ago [1], this is not so much about >> *abstraction* but *generalization* (also elaborated on in [2]). So let >> us neither prescribe nor prohibit. >> >> We should carefully consider what has been done in the wild, and >> especially practices stemming from, but not limited to, libraries. A >> good example of this is the Dublin Core Terms vocabulary [3], which has >> been heavily used for many years now, in lots of linked data scenarios. >> It is used in and recommended by many W3C specs (e..g SKOS, VoID and >> PROV) and is the base for many community vocabularies, such as BIBO. Its >> terms are used in lots, if not most, of the datasets in the Linked Open >> Data cloud. If there is any stable core in the plethora of bibliographic >> vocabularies, I'd say DC terms is it. And it gets by with (probably >> because of) quite a minimal specification (just like schema.org >> <http://schema.org>). >> >> I therefore suggest that we consider 'isFormatOf', explicitly based on >> 'dcterms:isFormatOf' [4], as a replacement for, or indeed a unification >> of, both the 'instanceOf' and 'commonEndeavour' proposals (and possibly >> content/carrier). >> >> Dublin Core defines 'isFormatOf' as: >> >> A related resource that is substantially the same as the described >> resource, but in another format. >> >> The things being in specific formats are representations, manifestations >> or instances. This property can be used both to relate between different >> formats (similar to 'commonEndeavour'), and for linking from a specific >> format to a generalized notion, such as an expression or work (similar >> to 'instanceOf'). The latter use of 'dcterms:isFormatOf' is quite >> common, using the pattern of linking different representations (e.g. in >> HTML or PDF for digital representations, or hardcover or paperback for >> physical books) to a general resource which they represent. Examples of >> this can be seen e.g. in legislation.gov.uk <http://legislation.gov.uk> >> [5]. (For specifying the kind of format, schema:bookFormat is >> applicable, as is the more general dcterms:format property). >> >> As for the actual name, we could include 'isFormatOf' as is (and >> possibly its inverse, 'hasFormat'). Or we could relabel it somehow. The >> name is important, but only instrumentally so. The most important thing >> is to find a common meaning, and to do so we should base it on existing >> usage. >> >> (I'd also like to note that the solid proposal we do have on the table, >> 'hasPart'/'isPartOf', correlates very much to the existing Dublin Core >> properties of the same name (as has also been discussed). I do think we >> should mention that in the wiki page. I can address that unless anyone >> objects, following the pattern of the Datasets proposal [6]. In fact, if >> we can find a common ground in (at least parts of) the Dublin Core >> terms, we can also continue to import some other terms, such as >> 'isVersionOf', 'references' and 'source', if needed.) >> >> Regarding the necessity of an abstract class, I don't think it is a >> strict requirement for this pattern. The notion of variable >> generalization is already present in the fact that we don't describe one >> single item/copy even at the specific format level. That is, even a >> "manifestation" has the extent of a group, and thus we can relate that >> to a broader group representing the union of manifestations (i.e. the >> "expression" level), without needing to separate the classes. This >> notion seems very much present in the Product type as well, where it's >> up to the user of the vocabulary to determine the level of specificity >> for the subject described. Granted, there are additional specializations >> in IndividualProduct and ProductModel, but both derive from the general >> Product class. Thus, there is no principal divide. (In fact, if a case >> was made that there is, that would seem to be an argument for the >> applicability of WEMI in schema.org..) >> >> (The choice of which other properties (e.g. author, illustrator, >> subjects, publisher) should be specific to a certain >> format/representation is then up to the data publisher (cataloguer >> and/or library system) to determine. You might do selective copying of >> properties, or link to a prototypical uniform work. Consumers/services >> wishing to index data for each specific format in their entirety can >> also copy in the general properties from the general form. Others may >> choose to traverse graphs, or even create unions of related formats >> altogether into a mixed form described with all properties.) >> >> Cheers, >> Niklas >> >> [1]: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/2013Mar/0077.html >> [2]: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/abstract.htm >> [3]: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ >> [4]: http://purl.org/dc/terms/isFormatOf >> [5]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/developer/formats/rdf >> [6]: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Datasets >> >> -- >> Niklas Lindström >> National Library of Sweden (KB) > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 02:14:05 UTC